§ (1.) £33,361, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.
§ MR. BIGGARcalled attention to the item of £1,300 on page 4 of the Votes for the repair of one of the Palaces. It seemed a very large sum for the repair of one establishment, and he should like to have an explanation of the item.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the sum certainly was rather larger than usual; but it had arisen on account of the necessity of painting the exterior.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £2,178, to complete the sum for Marlborough House.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £90,921, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the Bum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
§ MR. HEALYwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works with regard to the Royal Parks. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had recently taken some steps in the direc- 1160 tion of throwing Hyde Park Corner open to the public; and he thought the Members of the House should have an opportunity of knowing what changes the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make. One remark he desired to make in reference to Hyde Park was this—that the whole of Hyde Park and Rotten Row were devoted to the pleasure and amusement of the wealthy and aristocratic classes who could afford to keep their carriages, while the humble plebeian was forbidden all access to them if he could only afford to hire a hansom cab. If he could afford to pay half-a-crown for a hackney carriage, he was able to enjoy the drive; but if he could only pay 1s. for a cab, he was prevented from doing so. If, instead of having only 1s., he happened to have a sovereign, he could go where he pleased; and he (Mr. Healy) wished to know upon what principle it was laid down that the man with only 1s. must not drive in the park, while the man with 20s. might? Why should the Committee be called upon to vote away the public money in order to give certain privileges to the aristocratic classes who were able to drive their carriages? He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would in future give instructions that the parks should be as freely open to people using hackney carriages and hansom cabs as they were to the more aristocratic owners of private carriages.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had urged the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the last 15 years, and he had divided the Committee upon it; but he had certainly never found himself in a majority. It was monstrous, he thought, that the public, who paid for the parks, should not be allowed to use them, and that the money voted for their maintenance should be practically devoted to the exclusive use of wealthy persons who possessed carriages. There was not a single other park in the whole of Europe in which this exclusive right existed. The great value of a park was that it was a place where the rich and the poor might meet together. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would tell thorn that the traffic would not permit of the admission of other vehicles; but if that were the case, then he (Mr. Labouchere) would suggest that there should be one day on which cabs should be excluded, and an- 1161 other day on which private carriages should be excluded. He remembered the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the Office of Works, 15 years ago, telling him that poor people derived a special pleasure from looking at the wealthy classes driving along the parks in their carriages. They might, if they liked, look at the wealthy people driving by; but if they desired to take a drive themselves in hired cabs, they were prevented from entering the parks. He claimed that the general public had as perfect a right to the full enjoyment of the parks as the wealthy classes.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he hoped that there would be a more liberal distribution of free seats in the Green Park and St. James's Park. Twelve months ago an assurance was given that a larger distribution would be made of free seats; but, so far from the promise having been carried out, there had been no addition whatever to the free seats, except it was in Hyde Park only. What he desired to point out was that it was not in Hyde Park that a larger supply of free seats was required, but in the Green Park, St. James's Park, Battersea Park, and Victoria Park. Those were the parks to which the working classes went for pleasure and pastime; and in them it was most difficult to find a seat without being pounced upon by the proprietor's agent with a demand for 1d. or 2d. The Green Park and St. James's Park were the rendezvous of the workpeople of Westminster, Lambeth, Soho, and those living in the neighbourhood of the Strand; and these persons were charged 1d. or 2d., according to the size of the chair they occupied. [Laughter, and cries of "No!"] He believed the charge was 1d. for a single chair, and 2d. for an armchair. [An hon. MEMBER: No; only 1d. in each case.] He was glad to hear that there had been an improvement in that respect. He knew that it was so formerly. At any rate, the moment a person sat down in one of these chairs up went the agent of the proprietor, as though he had sprung from beneath it in some way or other, so rapid was he in the collection of the money. He thought that the collection of money for the use of seats in a public park ought to be entirely done away with; but if they could not do away with the payment for seats altogether, then he hoped the First 1162 Commissioner of Works would favourably entertain the proposition for largely increasing the number of free seats in the parks to which he (Mr. Broadhurst) had referred.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he would support the request for more free seats in the parks. He was also anxious for further information in regard to the contemplated changes at Hyde Park Corner. He did not propose, however, to discuss the merits of those changes at the present moment; but he simply wished to elicit a statement from his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner as to what his intentions were.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked whether, in regard to the contemplated improvements at Hyde Park Corner, it was proposed to take any money in the present Estimates? He presumed that if the necessary sum were proposed to be voted in a Supplementary Estimate the Vote would be laid in due course before the House, and would afford the proper opportunity for a discussion. He should like to know, in the meantime, how much money it was intended to vote now?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that it was his intention to take a Vote, probably not exceeding £3,000, in respect of the Hyde Park Corner improvements. That sum was necessary, not so much for the improvement itself, as for the removal of a reservoir which was rendered necessary by the scheme, and which it was also desirable to remove for other reasons. When the Treasury were asked to advance the money for the Hyde Park improvements he was bound to say that his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was of opinion that the improvements were more of a Metropolitan than of an Imperial character, and expressed a doubt whether the House of Commons would feel justified in voting the money necessary to carry them out. His noble Friend, however, considered that he would be justified in asking for a Vote for the removal of the reservoir just mentioned; but that otherwise the whole expense of the improvement should be provided by the Metropolitan Board of Works or by the owners of private property. A Supplementary Vote would be laid before the House later in the Session. With regard to the question as to the seats in the parks raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke- 1163 upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst), he might say that last year he had expended a considerable sum of money in providing additional seats in Hyde Park; and he had been under the impression that the same course had been taken in regard to St. James's Park. If he should prove to be wrong in that impression, he would undertake this year that an ample provision should be made for seats. No doubt, both St. James's Park and the Green Park were more used by the working classes than Hyde Park; and he should be very sorry that there should be any want of accommodation for them. In regard to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he had to say that the complaint they had made in respect of the non-admission of hackney cabs in Hyde Park was one of long standing. In early times hackney cabs were permitted in Hyde Park and in the other parks, and the fact was recorded in the Memoirs of Pepys. The writer of that interesting diary frequently spoke of driving in Hyde Park in a hackney carriage; but at a subsequent period, when he was able to keep a carriage of his own, he appeared to be highly scandalized at the large number of hackney coaches that were to be seen there. At a later date, hackney coaches were altogether prohibited in the Parks, and the prohibition had been maintained because it was considered undesirable that the Parks should be converted into a mere thoroughfare for the use of people driving in cabs from one station to another. The prohibition had only been maintained in that sense; and there was no prohibition, even at the present moment, against the use of hackney carriages hired from a livery stable. The prohibition only applied to cabs hired in the streets. He thought it was for the interests of the public generally that the Royal Parks should not be made the mere medium of traffic from one part of Loudon to another.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was another point upon which he was anxious to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner in reference to the trees in Kew Gardens. He was given to understand that a good many trees had been cut down by the order of the Curator. The Curator pleaded, as 1164 his reason, not that the trees were objectionable, as trees, but that a good deal of flirtation went on beneath them. He thought it was hardly the business of the Curator to destroy the trees or to interfere in flirtations; and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had heard of the action of the Curator, and whether he intended to take notice of it in any way? He had, however, risen for another object—namely, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £17,680, that being the cost of Battersea Park, Kennington Park, and Victoria Park. He did not understand upon what grounds the cost of all the new parks that were made in London was thrown upon the Public Treasury. It appeared to him that it ought to be paid by the ratepayers of the Metropolis, and that it should not fall upon the taxpayers of the country generally. Those parks had been bought at very great expenditure and by the public money. He believed that Victoria Park was a Royal Park; but he did not know whether the others were or not. He thought the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to take them over, and that it ought to be distinctly stated in the House of Commons that they were not prepared, year by year, to vote large sums of the public money for the maintenance of the parks in the Metropolis. With every desire that these open spaces should continue to exist in the Metropolis, he could not forget that it was a very wealthy Metropolis, and that it ought to pay for the health and enjoyment of its inhabitants. He certainly failed to see why there was any more reason why the public generally should pay for the maintenance of the parks in the Metropolis than that the people of London should pay for keeping up the parks in other parts of the country. He, therefore, begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £17,680; and he hoped that the Amendment would be taken as a hint that a stop must be put to the present habit of throwing upon the Public Exchequer expenses which ought to be borne by the localities.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £73,241, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ MR. A. PEASEwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works if he could hold out any hope that Constitution Hill, from Buckingham Palace to Hyde Park Corner, would be thrown open to the public? It would be a great convenience to the public going by way of Pall Mall and St. James's Street to Hyde Park Corner to have this road thrown open. At present it was necessary that they should go round by a very circuitous route. There was no desire to interfere with the comfort or privacy of the Royal Family in the occupation of Buckingham Palace; but he believed that the route which would be taken would rather add to the privacy of the Palace than otherwise. He believed that the throwing open of the road would be most acceptable to the public; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to making the suggested alteration.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that, only an hour or two ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) positively stated to him, in answer to a Question, that there was no item in the Votes for constables employed in London on special services, such as gate-keepers in the parks, or at the House of Commons, or in the public gardens. Remembering the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave him earlier in the evening, he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would explain what was the meaning of the sum of £7,000 which appeared in the Votes for Metropolitan constables, paid specially for their services as constables and as gate-keepers in the parks. The payments, he understood, were for special and extraordinary services performed in the Metropolis. The complaint he had to make was that when similar services were performed in other localities, the cost was thrown upon the local ratepayers. When he put his Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary at an earlier period of the evening, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the most absolute and barefaced manner, if he might say so—["Oh!"] Well, then, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the strongest and most emphatic manner, denied that this was the case in the Me- 1166 tropolis, notwithstanding that he was warned that such an item did appear upon the Estimates. With his usual confidence, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ridiculed the idea, and seemed to take it for granted that it was impossible he could be wrong.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESasked if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in referring to a past debate in the House?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was referring to the debate which had taken place that night he was out of Order.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he was only asking for information. He was much obliged to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) for putting him right; but he merely wished to know why a charge appeared in the Estimates for the special services of constables in London, whereas charges for similar services were thrown on the ratepayers in the country. He thought that the whole of these charges, instead of being included in the Civil Service Estimates, ought to be paid for by the Metropolis itself. He again asked for some explanation whether it actually was the case that special services on the part of constables were inserted in the Estimates when they were rendered in the Metropolis, while similar services in the country were paid for out of the local rates?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought the hon. Member was wrong in the statement he had attributed to the Home Secretary.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFrose to Order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in alluding to a past debate?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that if there was any objection he would not continue the subject. The item referred to was for the services of police in the parks; and, personally, he thought it was a charge that ought to be borne by the local authorities, and not by the public generally. With regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), it was a question which had been discussed in the House in previous years—namely, whether the cost of some of the parks—Victoria, Battersea, and Kennington—should not be borne by the ratepayers? That was a question which might be fairly 1167 considered whenever the new Municipalities were provided for; and as that was a question that was likely to arise shortly, he thought it would be better to defer the subject until it could be properly discussed. Whenever that time did arrive, there were several items on the other side which would also have to be discussed; and he was by no means certain that the Treasury would be a gainer by taking all these matters over. For instance, there was the item of the City Police, of which the City at present bore the whole expense. Whenever the whole question came to be raised he did not think the public would gain much by throwing the expense of the parks upon the Metropolis, and having, on their part, to bear the expense of the City Police. The matter, however, was one which might be deferred until the question of the London Municipality came to be discussed. With regard to Kew Gardens, he had seen a statement in the papers the other day with reference to the cutting down of certain trees. Now, he should no more dream of asking a question of the Curator of Kew Gardens in reference to the maintenance of everything that was beautiful in Kew Gardens than he should of asking a lawyer an opinion about his brief, or a doctor about his prescription. He thought the question was one that might safely be left in the hands of Sir Joseph Hooker, who had the entire interests of Kew Gardens at heart, and who was not likely to allow anything prejudicial to happen to the trees there.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had asked a question about Battersea Park. Now, Battersea Park was a very old friend of the House. The sum of £500,000 was spent some years ago upon Battersea Park; and, at the time that arrangement was entered into, it was understood that the improvements effected in the surrounding property, under good letting, would recoup the Treasury for a considerable portion of the outlay. He was sorry to find that the promise had turned out as he expected it would at the time it was made. After an interval of some 20 or 25 years, the land and building plots, which they were told were to be so profitable, had not been utilized, and the £500,000 advanced by the Treasury had never been recouped. He should 1168 be glad to know what improvements had been made, and what funds were available for paying the large expense of the maintenance of Battersea Park, for which a sum of £5,300 was asked in the present Estimate? He thought that, to some extent, the promise made by the Government at the time the park was taken should be carried out, and that the country should not be saddled with this very large annual charge.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must confess that he had heard with much astonishment the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He was somewhat surprised that an hon. Member with such strong Radical proclivities should make a proposal to throw the cost of the parks at Battersea, Kennington, and the East End of London upon the ratepayers; but that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works should give the slightest countenance to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman certainly filled him with amazement. Now, what was the proposal? It amounted to this—that the parks of the rich should be supported out of the Consolidated Fund; but that the parks of the poor in the East End and in other parts of London, used solely for the enjoyment and recreation of the humbler classes, should be supported by the ratepayers. Anything more astounding, coming from such a quarter, it was impossible to conceive; and whether the right hon. Gentleman made such a proposal now or at any future time, he should certainly give it a most uncompromising opposition.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to seed potatoes. He could not find any distinct reference to that subject in this Vote, and yet, when he had raised the matter previously, he had been put off until the present occasion. He wished to know if the Financial Secretary could inform him whether there was any provision in the Vote in regard to seed potatoes?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that the Vote had nothing whatever to do with seed potatoes.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member clearly thought the Vote referred to the question of seed potatoes, as it made provision for the Botanical Gardens at Kew. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner 1169 of Works would explain what the items were that were included in the Vote.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESwished to deny the assertion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that it was desired to pay for the Royal Parks out of the Consolidated Fund, and to tax the public for the East End Parks.
§ MR. HEALYrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) was in Order in referring to a past debate?
§ MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he was not referring to a past debate, but to the present debate, in the course of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had suggested that while the parks in the West End were supported out of the Consolidated Fund, those in the East End should be paid for out of the local rates. If the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had given a little more attention to the debate, he would have found that nothing of the kind had been suggested. So far as the East End Parks were concerned, it was perfectly competent for the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to form an opinion that the Corporation of London had ample means at their command to enable them to support them.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the hon. Member must have been asleep, or dreaming, while the discussion was going on, for he had entirely misrepresented what he (Mr. Ritchie) had said. He had said nothing whatever to the effect that the parks in the East End of London should be supported out of the rates; on the contrary, he had strongly objected to that proposition. The point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was that the Royal Parks—the parks of the rich—should continue to be maintained out of the Consolidated Fund; but that the parks of the East End of London, which were essentially the parks of the poor, should be supported out of the rates. To that proposition he (Mr. Ritchie) entirely objected. There might be some technical distinction between the Royal Parks and the other parks in London; but the people of the Metropolis would fail to understand that distinction, and they would only see, in any proposition of the kind, a proposal that the parks enjoyed and utilized by the rich were to continue to be supported out of the public funds, while those which were used by the poor 1170 were to be paid for out of the local rates. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) must certainly have been asleep, or dreaming, during the time that he (Mr. Ritchie) was making his remarks.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had not the slightest desire that Hyde Park, or any park in London, should be paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. He had only proposed the Amendment, throwing upon the ratepayers the cost of the three parks he had mentioned, because they were the last three which had been taken over. If his proposition were accepted, he should be prepared, at another time, to move that all the parks in London should be supported by the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He had certainly no desire to draw an invidious distinction between the Royal Parks and those which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) represented.
§ MR. RITCHIEasked why the hon. Gentleman did not include the whole of them in his Motion?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his only object in dividing the Committee at all was to register a protest against the expense of the parks being thrown upon the public. He hoped that his proposition would be considered by the Home Secretary, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would insert some such provision in his new Municipal Bill.
§ COLONEL NOLANdesired to have some particulars about the Vote for Kew Gardens, which was a very large one—namely, £10,000. Was the sum given simply for the support of the School of Botany? If so, it seemed to be a very expensive school. He noticed an item of £800 for a refrigerator; and he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether Sir Joseph Hooker did anything more in connection with Kew Gardens than superintend the school? No doubt the school was a very valuable one; but he thought there might be a distribution of seeds in other parts of the Kingdom, and even in India.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was scarcely necessary to state that at Kew Gardens there was a very valuable School of Botany, and that it did an enormous amount of scientific work. No doubt the Vote for Kew Gardens was large; but that was on account of the variety and enormous quantity of work which 1171 was carried on there. He could hardly say what the amount of work was, or what the value of it was; but it was very well known that the amount of it was very great.
§ MR. CARBUTTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question which had been put to him as to the use of Constitution Hill. At present a person desiring to go in a cab in that direction had to go round by Park Lane and through the back streets; but if he happened to have a carriage he could go right through the park and along Constitution Hill.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had to apologize to the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. A. Pease) for not having answered the question sooner. He was afraid he could hold out no hopes in regard to the throwing open of Constitution Hill. The question was rather a delicate one; it had not yet been raised, and at present he did not propose to raise it. It was right, however, to say that Her Majesty had given Her consent to the improvements proposed to be carried out in connection with Hyde Park Corner, although, to some extent, they would interfere with Her private gardens at Buckingham Palace. He would make some inquiries as to permission for cabs to cross Hyde Park. He was under the impression that cabs were now allowed to go across the western division of Hyde Park.
§ MR. HEALYunderstood that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was going to divide the Committee upon his Motion. He presumed that it would be open for him (Mr. Healy), after that Motion was disposed of, to move the reduction of the Vote by a smaller sum?
MR. BUXTONasked whether, if Her Majesty gave up a portion of Her rights in connection with Buckingham Palace Gardens, it was proposed to make any addition to the Palace Gardens in another direction?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was not the case. There would be no addition whatever to the gardens of Buckingham Palace; but, on the contrary, there would be a contraction of them.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked what was the meaning of an item in the Vote which stated that the roads at Kew 1172 cost £700 a-year? Were they public roads, or the roads of the pleasure gardens? If they were not in the botanic and pleasure gardens he did not see why they should be included in the Vote.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question—whether any income was derived from the improvements in Battersea Park?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was mistaken as to the original cost of Battersea Park. The cost was £200,000, and not £500,000. £100,000 had already been repaid by the sale of property; the remaining £100,000 had not been repaid; but there was a certain part of the property let on lease. In all probability something like £60,000 or £70,000 would never be repaid. The park had now been open for a considerable number of years. In regard to the Kew roads, he did not know exactly what the arrangement was; but he would make inquiries.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was one question which he would like to put to the First Commissioner of Works upon this matter. During the hours of daylight or sunlight people could walk across Kensington Gardens; but at certain times, ranging from 4 until 7 o'clock, the gates were closed; and he wished to know whether they could not be kept open until a later hour? He was at a loss to understand why the gates could not be kept open to a much later hour, in order to save persons who lived on the other side of the park the trouble and inconvenience of going a long distance out of their way. Of course, he was aware that the keeping of the gates open might involve an additional expense; but the present regulations were a source of so much inconvenience that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could speak from personal experience of the great inconvenience which resulted from closing the park gates at so early an hour. He had repeatedly crossed the park in the afternoon, and found the gates closed at 4 o'clock on his return. The rule now in force seemed to him most unnecessary, and he hoped the First Commissioner of Works would take into consideration the desirability of altering it as soon as possible.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsuggested that the Committee might be able to get through the Business of the evening with a clearer idea of what they were doing by disposing of one matter at a time. Hon. Members had already before them an important question, raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), which had created a great amount of disinterested activity on the part of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). It would be well to come to a settlement of that question first, because he was sure that the subject of seed crops at Kew Gardens, referred to by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Nolan), had been very imperfectly explained to the apprehension of a large number of Members.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he simply wished to know if Kew Gardens were used, to a considerable extent, for the propagation of seeds and plants for particular purposes, and if there was any other establishment in this country which was used for the same purpose?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was not in Order in raising that question on the present Vote.
§ COLONEL NOLANremarked that he had carefully avoided alluding to seed potatoes.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no other establishment in England used for the purpose alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member. He thought, however, there was one other in Edinburgh; but he understood that no plants were being propagated there.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, as the question before the Committee was the proposed reduction of the Vote by a certain sum of money which included the expenses of maintaining Battersea Park, he was surprised that when the right hon. Gentleman rose to reply to the questions which had been put to him, he should have omitted to answer the very pertinent inquiry addressed to him by the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien). It was mentioned in connection with Battersea Park that a large sum of money had been advanced some years ago, and the hon. Member for King's County had inquired the amount of the funds derived from the land. He would be glad to know what sum the right hon. Gentleman expected to get this year on account of Battersea Park, because the sum due 1174 in the shape of interest alone was more than enough to cover the item charged for maintenance.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, as the result of the pending division would possibly leave the park at Battersea within the control of that House, he begged, in the interest of the poor clerks and artizans who visited it, especially on Sunday, to ask what necessity there was for tying up the little pleasure boats on that day, without any regard to the feelings of those who would like to use them? He ventured to hope that the arrangements at the park, which would doubtless remain under the control of the House of Commons, would be made to suit the public requirements, and that between then and next year the grievance he had referred to would be remedied. He thought it was pushing Biblical prudery too far to say that we were not to be allowed to amuse ourselves in a harmless manner on Sundays. There were great numbers of young men in the Metropolis who would be glad to use their muscles in the wholesome exercise of canoeing, but who had no chance of doing so in consequence of the present absurd arrangements, the alteration of which, in the direction indicated, he felt sure would confer a considerable boon on a deserving class.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had certainly not acted upon the advice he had himself given to the Committee a short time ago, that questions should be dealt with in their proper order; and, therefore, he suggested to the consideration of the hon. Member whether it would not be better to reserve his observations upon canoes until the Navy Estimates were reached? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, although he had not replied to the question relating to Kensington Gardens, would endeavour to do something in the direction proposed.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would make inquiries into the regulations for closing the gates at Kensington Gardens; and if he found it practicable to alter them in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) he would certainly do so. Of course, he could not hold out any expectation that the gates would remain open all night, because there were many considerations which rendered that unde- 1175 sirable; but if it were possible they should be kept open longer than usual. He had found it necessary to shut up a portion of St. James's Park during the night, inconsequence of complaints made to him by clergymen and others, and he was afraid his hon. Friend might not approve that step. With regard to Battersea park, he reminded the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that this was not the only park in which there were lakes with boats upon them. It had been usual for many years past to let out boats upon the water in Hyde Park on week days, but not on Sundays, and he was quite satisfied that the public would not wish that practice to be altered. It might be a Sabbatarian view of the case; but he pointed out to the hon. Member that if the boats were let for hire on Sundays a considerable number of persons would be requisite to attend upon them, and these would, in consequence, be deprived of their day of rest. The tendency, on the whole, was to use the parks as places for walking in on Sundays, and there was a general feeling against them being made use of for other purposes, as was the case in former days. He remembered the time when a number of carriages were to be seen in the parks on Sundays; but that was not so now, the reason being, as he believed, that people wished their servants to be employed on Sundays as little as possible. He was sorry to say that there were long arrears of interest upon the money advanced for Battersea Park. The original sum expended was £200,000, of which £100,000 had been repaid.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, although there appeared to be a conscientious objection to the employment of men to take pence for boat hire on Sunday afternoons, the same objection was not felt to the employment of the persons who took pence on Sundays for the use of chairs in the parks. For his own part, he was unable to see any difference between the two cases.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved the Committee would understand that chairs were more essential than boats to the comfort of the public using the parks.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 139: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 69.)
1176§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the reduction of the Vote by the odd £921. The right hon. Gentleman, in the reply he had tendered, had not given satisfaction as to this matter of refusing to allow cabs to pass through the Parks. He had only stated that the custom in question was an old one, and that was no explanation. Moreover, the case of Mr. Heeps that the righthon. Gentleman had quoted seemed, so far as he (Mr. Healy) could gather, to be altogether in favour of the argument to which the right hon. Gentleman had replied. When Mr. Heeps was poor he was in favour of being allowed to pass through the Parks in cabs; but when he grew rich he was scandalized at such a proceeding on the part of anybody else. A man who hired a hackney cab for, say, 1s., was not allowed to drive through Hyde Park; but a man who hired a carriage could drive through them as much as he liked. The disability in the case of the person who engaged the cab did not apply to Hyde Park alone, but to Richmond Park as well. It could not be said that the traffic was as great in the latter as in the former; and if there was anything in the argument that people driving in their carriages through Hyde Park, where there was such a large amount of carriage traffic, would be scandalized to see people in cabs admitted amongst them, the same argument could not apply in the case of Richmond Park. Whatever he might do in the matter of Hyde Park, would the right hon. Gentleman, at least, guarantee that in the, comparatively speaking, little-used Park at Richmond the restriction which was complained of would be taken off? This House of Commons was, broadly speaking, a House of rich men—to a great extent an aristocratic Assembly—and it did not come well from a Body, so many of whom were supposed to represent the aristocratic classes, to keep up this disability against the poor. When the House became more and more democratic, as it would become—nay, as it was becoming—no doubt it would put a stop to the Chamber being a preserve for the rich. Rotten Row, the Ladies' Mile, and other rides and drives, were kept up for the benefit of the aristocratic classes. The rich were allowed to air 1177 themselves and their conveyances in these places; and when, on behalf of the poor, it was urged merely that cabs should be admitted within the Park gates, those who made the request were met by the aristocratic classes saying, "Oh! the traffic is too great." Possibly, in the hours during which the aristocratic classes disported themselves in the parks, there might be too much of the present traffic for the admission of traffic of another kind; but there were certain hours during the night and day when fashion did not allow the aristocracy to show themselves in these places, and, during those hours, it could not be said that "the traffic was too great" to admit cabs. At 12 o'clock at night, for instance, the aristocracy were not riding and driving up and down, at any rate, in anything like numbers, and the sight of a hackney carriage would not annoy them, nor its presence interfere with them very much. It would not come between the wind and their nobility. Then, again, there were certain seasons when "nobody" was supposed to be in London; and if "nobody" was in Hyde Park, why was it that the poor were not allowed to drive through it in cabs? In the Phœnix Park in Dublin they could drive in cabs as much as they liked, and the Park was in that way a great boon to the public. People of the middle and lower classes, and, for that matter, anyone, could drive through the Park on Sundays on pleasure excursions; but directly a person in a hackney carriage came to Richmond Park gates he was stopped by a policeman or a "Ranger," and told that he could not go through. Probably if the hackney carriage driver was to remove the number from his conveyance and cover up his badge he might be allowed to drive through; but if he did that, he would be acting illegally, and subjecting himself to a heavy penalty. He (Mr. Healy) moved the reduction of the Vote as a protest against hackney cabs being allowed entrance to the parks, and so that, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman being called to the matter, he might consider it, and, probably next year, see his way to making some concession.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £90,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
1178
the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ MR. EDWARD SHEILsaid, that in the Estimates under the head of St. James's Park, Green Park, and Hyde Park, there was an item for Police; and in another Vote in the Department of "Rangers" there was a sum of £1,273 for "Park Constables." How was it that this high charge for constables was not included in the large item immediately preceding it?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the constables of the parks were an entirely different body from the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police were employed in the parks; but, in addition to these, there were constables who were permanent officials there. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was mistaken with regard to Richmond Park. ["No, no!"] Well, certainly, he was not aware of the restriction complained of by the hon. Member. He had recently driven through the park in a fly hired from the Station without being interfered with. With regard to Hyde Park, it was only a matter of public convenience whether or not cabs should be allowed in the drives. From Lancaster Gate to Queen's Gate cabs were allowed; therefore, if it was said that a thoroughfare was required in the park through which cabs could drive, the answer was that it already existed. There was no other drive in which it was considered necessary to allow cabs; but if a thoroughfare was desirable in any other direction, no doubt cabs would be permitted to use it. He objected to this being considered a question as between rich and poor; and, in the interest of the poor themselves, it was important that they should prevent the parks being used merely for traffic purposes, for enabling people to get conveyance from one point to another. The people who used the park went there for enjoyment; and it was, therefore, desirable to limit the use of it as a thoroughfare as much as possible.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he did not think the explanation they had just heard was particularly satisfactory, inasmuch as it left the question just where it was before. It seemed that a certain class of persons might drive in that part of Hyde Park set apart for driving, whilst another class were not allowed that privilege. People who used 1179 their own or hired carriages were allowed to drive there; but people who did not own and could not afford to hire a carriage and wished to go through in a cab were not permitted to do so; and if this was not a question between rich and poor, he was at a loss to know what could be. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of inconvenience to the general public, and it was to be presumed that by "general public" he meant everyone who could afford to keep or hire a carriage. This would remind hon. Members of the old definition of respectability which so much amused Mr. Carlyle—namely, "a man who could afford to keep a gig." As for the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had been allowed to drive in a hackney carriage through Richmond Park, bold indeed would have been the policeman who ventured to stop the progress of the First Commissioner of Works. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman—who, he was sure, had as much contempt for class distinctions as had any Member of the Committee—would give them an assurance that this matter should have his attention.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was not correct as to the condition of things in Richmond Park. If he would go down by rail to Richmond Station and jump into one of the hackney chaises and ask the driver to drive him through the park, he would find that the cabman, although accepting his instructions, would put him down at the gate, and would take him not an inch further. He (Mr. Broadhurst) did not rise to support this complaint in the interests of those he represented, because he did not believe they used cabs very much; but he spoke in the interests of the Richmond cab-drivers, to whom it would be a great convenience and advantage, whilst it would be no damage to the park, if they were allowed to drive visitors from the station through it, just as, at the present moment, private carriages were allowed to pass through. The anomaly came in here—that the hired vehicle with a number on it paid duty to the State, and it was on account of paying that duty that it was not permitted to enter the park, vehicles that did not pay duty being permitted to go through. [A laugh.] Well, cabs, at any rate, paid duty; and the right hon. Gen- 1180 tleman might give the Committee an assurance that he would inquire into the matter, and if he found the statements hon. Members now made correct—that in Richmond Park, where there was no congestion of traffic at any time, these public vehicles were not allowed to drive through—the regulations would be altered as desired.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, this question had been treated as one entirely between those who rode in carriages and those who rode in cabs; but he would suggest that there was another class who had to be considered—a class to which he belonged himself—whether in regard to Richmond Park or Hyde Park—namely, those who passed through on foot. He himself was in constant danger in the streets from that rapidly passing vehicle called a "hansom," and also from the "crawling" cab; but in the parks he was free from that danger. He protested as strongly as he could against the introduction of the cab element into the parks.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member who had spoken last but one (Mr. Broadhurst) spoke as though the duty had been removed from all vehicles other than hackney carriages; and how he had arrived at that conclusion—unless, perchance, he had been allowed an insight into the Budget, which was shortly to be brought forward—it was hard to tell. As to this being a question as between rich and poor, he did not think there could be a more expensive habit than driving about in hansom cabs. It was to be hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman gave his attention to this matter, as he was invited to do, he would not give facilities to hackney carriages to invade the parks.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance to the Committee that he would consider the question of the desirability of allowing hackney carriages to pass through Richmond Park, as there was great distinction to be drawn between cabs in Hyde Park and cabs in Richmond Park. He did not think it was necessary to allow cabs to pass through Hyde Park, as he did not believe they would be able to get more rapidly from one end to the other than they did at present. The state of things in Richmond Park, however, was very different.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, lie should be sorry if he had misled the Committee on this matter. He had said that there was no prohibition against cabs passing through Richmond Park, and he had been of opinion that that was the case; but the hon. Member seemed to dispute it. He would promise to make inquiries into the subject.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, and that if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to consider the subject with a view of increasing the facilities to the public for passing through Richmond Park, he (Mr. Healy) would withdraw his Amendment, and would put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter some time next week. Hon. Members might fairly be satisfied for the present with the right hon. Gentleman's promise. If, however, he (Mr. Healy) was in the House next year he should interrogate the Government as to the desirability of allowing Hyde Park to remain open all day and all night, when the ordinary traffic there could not possibly be interfered with by the admission of cabs.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, that he himself had been prohibited from driving through Richmond Park in a fly. He had gone down on two occasions, once he had gone down for the purpose of getting a little fresh air, and that was the occasion on which he was prevented from passing through; but on another occasion, when they arrived at the Park Gates, the driver said they were going to Lord John Russell's, and they were allowed to proceed. From this it had seemed to him that the Park was not so much for the public as for Lord John Russell.
§ MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the condition of the Achilles in Hyde Park. What, he supposed, had originally been a flaw in the casting had developed, under the joint action of time and the London atmosphere, into a serious wound, not, as might have been expected, on the heel, but on the calf of the right leg. The condition of the statue gave him the impression that if it was not for the coat of mail behind it, the leg would break off and the statue fall forward. He had only risen for the purpose of calling attention to this matter.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would certainly inquire into the matter.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £31,110, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament.
MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to make a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, which he thought would facilitate the course of Public Business, and it was, that they should now agree to Progress being reported. The noble Marquess the present Leader of the Government (the Marquess of Hartington) had announced that he intended to-night to make a proposition which he himself would admit was of an unprecedented nature. It was one to which the House could not be expected to assent without, at least, some discussion. In order that that discussion might take place, he suggested that the Government should agree to the Chairman reporting Progress.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not propose to go beyond the next Vote. It would be convenient if the Committee would consent to take that. ["No, no!"] If he thought it would necessitate a long discussion, he would not suggest that they should take the next Vote. They, however, would be able to deal with the next Vote in a very short time.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, if, as the noble Lord stated, it would not take them long to dispose of the next Vote, it would not take them long when it came on again.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.